Questions 23-33 are based on the following passage.

Invasive Species

In order to develop predictive theories, invasion biologists have made several attempts to explain why certain species have been successful in [23] establishing locations. [24] After critically reviewing these theories, scientists found only a few of them to contain any predictive value. They identified three levels of characteristics: species- level characteristics, e.g. body size, reproductive rate, geographic range, and [25] habitat breadth, location-level characteristics, e.g. climate, structure and composition of the native habitat, and latitude; event-level characteristics, e.g. number of individuals released, and date of introduction.

Event-level characteristics are much more important than [26] species and location. By far the most important characteristic appears to be the number of introductions of a species and the number of individuals released. This single factor explains much of the variation in the presence of non-native species. One of the few species-level characteristics that appears to have explanatory power is the climate and habitat [27] breadth of the species. Another relevant characteristic is behavioral flexibility: the ability of the species to adapt to new food resources or ecological conditions. Generalist, widespread species have a better chance of being introduced and [28] become established.

The Netherlands has always had excellent water connections to the European hinterland: mainly the rivers Rhine and Meuse. These rivers create a permanent [30] acceptance of water species, occasionally including non-native species. Another important pathway for non-native species is aquaculture. Lots of water plants and animals are imported for use in Dutch aquaria and ponds. In addition, fish species are introduced for angling.

The number of non-native freshwater species [31] have increased strongly over the past decades. Many macroinvertebrates, fish and water plants have been introduced by human activity, mainly the trade of plants and fish for use in ponds, the release of fish species for angling purposes, the construction of the Main-Donau canal, and the discharge of ballast water.

After the opening of the Rhine-Main Danube waterway, the southern corridor became the principal corridor for the spread of non-native

macroinvertebrates to the River Rhine.

Up to now, the dispersal of only a few non-native species was related to the Southwestern and Mediterranean corridors. Another important pathway for macroinvertebrates is the import from North America.

Some non-native species of fish have been present in the Netherlands for a long time. [33] Macroinvertebrates and water plants are much less than non-native fish species which make up 30%. After 1990, again a fair amount of non-native fish species was introduced, mainly as a result of trade in pond fish.

As for water plants, the main pathway (75% of which are non-native species) is escape from gardens, ponds or aquaria. Although most non- native water plants do not cause any problems,

some species proliferate.

Questions 34-44 are based on the following passage.

Can Artificial Intelligence Make Art without Artists?

The question of whether machines can make art provokes very different answers from pioneers in the field. Harold Cohen refuses to ascribe creativity to his art-making robot [34] AARON, while Leonel Moura argues that since his “Artbots” generate pictures from emergent properties that could not have been predicted by their creator, “they have at least some degree of creativity.” Although the question of whether machines can be artists seems to fall squarely on our definition of the latter, a solution to this philosophical [35] tenet may ironically lie in redirecting the question away from the artist and toward the viewer.

[36] For 50 years, Harold Cohen collaborated with a computer program he dubbed AARON. Gradually, he refined its code to produce drawings. Later, he created paintings which grabbed his interest and that of a large public.

Over the years, Cohen also redefined [37] its own role, which shifted from a programmer, who sets rules for AARON, to follow to a co-producer, who serves as colorist for AARON’s designs. Along with his own experience as an artist, five decades of working with a computational machine to produce art made Cohen especially qualified [38] to judge, whether an artificial intelligence can be considered an artist in its own right. Despite admitting the critical role AARON has played in his life as an artist, Cohen seemed [39] reluctant to grant his robotic partner the status of an artist to the extent that he disqualifies a number of [40] procedure aspect of artistry that can be modeled in computer code. Instead of talking about AARON as an individual artist, Cohen speaks about this collaboration in terms that highlight the personal nature of this human-machine relationship;

Cohen characterizes the artistic potential of machines not in their intrinsic artistry but in their special collaborations with humans, as in his own relationship with AARON. [41] He considers the attempt to model human creativity on a computer a vain effort and throws a wet blanket on the possibility of machine made art.

Artist Leonel Moura, by comparison, is a newer recruit to the machine-human boundary. Moura began experimenting with artificial intelligence and robotic art in the late 1990s, and since the 2000s

[42]   produced mobile robots that make drawings based on color density. These robots’ dynamic is collective rather than individual. Moura releases a

[43]  collection of them onto a plastic canvas, each armed with ink of a different color and a color sensor that helps its on-board software decide when to mark the PVC surface. The result is a multicolored drawing emerging from hundreds of such individual [44] strokes for Moura. Whether his art is made with or without machines is unimportant, so long as it is accepted by the art world’s gatekeepers.